Mississippi School does the right thing: Bans prom due to Lesbian couple attending.

[CurveLight]

They were smart enough to not fall into the trap.

Nobody said cowards are dumb. They're just American hating cowards.

Yes, the People of Ibwataba Co should care more about the feelings of Queers in Seattle.

This is a strawman. I didn't say anything about Seattle.

My position is: the school should respect the Constitution.

You change that to: the school should care what gay Seattleians think.

Thanks for the timely example!

 

[Samson]

There will still be a prom. Either some parents will "rent" the school for a private "Spring Formal" or the local K of C will rent their hall to the parents. I wonder who will provide the Gay Detectors at the door? Is Haggert still looking for a job?

That's neither here nor there.... you can invite whomever you want or not invite whomever you want to your own private function

There is no prom being held by the school... hence the school is not discriminating

You're missing the point you dumb fuxxing *****.

And you grasp the point that discrimination is bad, as long as its discrimination with which you don't agree.

Discriminating against the beliefs of the parents, of course, is perfectly OK.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

a religious organization, should have the right to decide who they let into their social functions/membership I completely agree with you there.

I believe most people against homosexuality are not bad people or biggots, though some are, but most i believe just have a moral or religious objection to it, the same as with abortion or any other sin

I refuse to condemn or throw under the bus people with moral convictions i dont agree with

<<<<sigh>>>>

Everyone does not Hate gays, bo.

I don't hate gays, but I think a church, and a school district, has rights to exclude individuals whose behavior conflicts with their moral beliefs. I wouldn't know why these individuals would WANT to be included in organizations or events in which their behaviour is so clearly unacceptable.

Oh, HELL no.

That's kind of the same reasoning used to excuse redlining. Nope, it's exactly the same reasoning. Why would black people,or Hispanic people, or pick your despised group, WANT to live in a neighborhood where they'd feel unwelcome (insert sickly sweet innocent expression here)? They'd be MUCH more comfortable in the bricks, where most of "their people" already are, no matter the substandard housing, ecological degradation, and distance from decent jobs, and no matter they worked their asses off to afford better. Same with people, whose sexual preference, a protected right under federal law, are not the majority of the population they live within. Why don't they just MOVE to friendlier climes? Hell, after this the families of these kids may have to. But so what...what's the harm?

The harm is in these little bigoted enclaves becoming more powerful than the law they are supposed to operate under. It flies in the face of what America holds up as its standard when it pokes its nose in other parts of the world for reasons far removed from that standard: equal protection under the law.

My question really was less rhetorically based than you assume: I really cannot imagine why Queers whould really care about being accepted in Ibawata Co, MS.

You've proven my worst fear: That some centralized authority will claim to know more about "what America holds up as its standard" than "these little bigoted enclaves."

Happily, in the USA, local people still have the right to determine how they will live. I applaud the Ibawata Co board for illustrating this fact.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nobody said cowards are dumb. They're just American hating cowards.

Yes, the People of Ibwataba Co should care more about the feelings of Queers in Seattle.

This is a strawman. I didn't say anything about Seattle.

My position is: the school should respect the Constitution.

You change that to: the school should care what gay Seattleians think.

Thanks for the timely example!

The school has no Constitutional problem. They canceled the prom. No one got discriminated against. Isn't it great how 2 abnormal people ruined the evening for everyone?

 

[Newby]

You don't even realize how the bolded sentence sinks your entire position, do you? Perceived as immoral.. hmmm.. yup... SURE DOESN'T APPLY HERE.

I said their ACTIONS were perceived as immoral, not that they were thought immoral simply because of their skin color alone.

the action was a direct result of race. if it were a white kid whistling there would have been no issue.

check mate.

I don't think so. Your little example of whistling is what does you in. A black person seen whistling wouldn't have caused any problems, and would not have been thought of as immoral. I'll give you that certain ACTIONS were thought immoral because of their skin color. I hardly think people thought them immoral simply because they were black, that's ridiculous. Perhaps rabidly racist people thought so, but normal people would certainly not.

 

[CurveLight]

I did not argue against a gay couple being allowed into the prom.. I did not argue for it either...

And if there is no prom there is no discrimination

But nice try

There will still be a prom. Either some parents will "rent" the school for a private "Spring Formal" or the local K of C will rent their hall to the parents. I wonder who will provide the Gay Detectors at the door? Is Haggert still looking for a job?

You are Terminally stupid. So long as the School does not host or run it, they are not discriminating against anyone.

You can't keep up. At. All. This is another strawman. I didn't say the school would be guilty of discrimination if parents paid for the prom directly. Thanks for another timely example.

 

[Samson]

Nobody said cowards are dumb. They're just American hating cowards.

Yes, the People of Ibwataba Co should care more about the feelings of Queers in Seattle.

This is a strawman. I didn't say anything about Seattle.

My position is: the school should respect the Constitution.

You change that to: the school should care what gay Seattleians think.

Thanks for the timely example!

Um.....article in the OP was written by the Seattle Times.

The school is respecting federal law: If they had banned any students from the prom, then this would have been unlawful. Instead, they simply cancelled the prom, making the sexual preference of any student a lawfully mute point.

 

[CurveLight]

That's neither here nor there.... you can invite whomever you want or not invite whomever you want to your own private function

There is no prom being held by the school... hence the school is not discriminating

You're missing the point you dumb fuxxing *****.

And you grasp the point that discrimination is bad, as long as its discrimination with which you don't agree.

Discriminating against the beliefs of the parents, of course, is perfectly OK.

It is impossible to practice bigotry against bigots you dumbass.

 

[DiamondDave]

There will still be a prom. Either some parents will "rent" the school for a private "Spring Formal" or the local K of C will rent their hall to the parents. I wonder who will provide the Gay Detectors at the door? Is Haggert still looking for a job?

That's neither here nor there.... you can invite whomever you want or not invite whomever you want to your own private function

There is no prom being held by the school... hence the school is not discriminating

You're missing the point you dumb fuxxing *****.

No.. YOU are missing the point, fartknocker

There is indeed no prom, as a prom being defined as a dance hosted by the school for the student body

The school cannot be discriminating when it is not hosting any prom at all... everyone has been equally denied the school sponsored dance/function

Even if there is a private party for the rest of the school kids that does not wish to have attended come with same sex dates, that is the right of the person hosting the private event

There are no other points to be made on the argument.. whether you are for or against kids having gay dates or whatever other position on whatever other sub-argument revolving around homosexuality or rules against chosen sexual behaviors/actions

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Policy is discriminatory and as much as you hate the Constitution it still needs to be pointed out that a school Policy does not trump the Constitution. The school failed to comply with current law and it knows this which is why the cowards could not honestly state why they moved the prom. I can't wait for one of the teachers or admins to get Haggertized. I'm sure you'd find a way to blame that on one of these two students as well.

Where in the constitution does it state that you can't descriminate due to sexual preference.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

.

Then why aren't sodomy laws unconstitutional? Why is polygamy illegal and why aren't cohabitation laws unconstitutional?

 

[Liability]

And besides, at the risk of sounding like a complete pig...

Two teenage girls, together, after the prom??? Sounds pretty hot to me. LOL.

Why is anyone arguing against this?

I don't know.

I had the same thought.

Does that fact offend you more than it offends me? Or vice versa?

(BTW, if I recall those bye gone days well enough, I suspect it is possible that there MIGHT be some heterosexual relations involving sexual contact going on in that school district after a Prom. Is that ok with the school district? Or is it just the risk that lesbians might choose to use Prom night as a reason to "get it on" that bothers them so much?)

 

[CurveLight]

Yes, the People of Ibwataba Co should care more about the feelings of Queers in Seattle.

This is a strawman. I didn't say anything about Seattle.

My position is: the school should respect the Constitution.

You change that to: the school should care what gay Seattleians think.

Thanks for the timely example!

The school has no Constitutional problem. They canceled the prom. No one got discriminated against. Isn't it great how 2 abnormal people ruined the evening for everyone?

I'm guessing there are more than just two abnormal bigots on the Board who wanted to cancel.

I would argue the students have been discriminated against. The class of 2010 of that high school has been unlawfully discriminated against by the Board because every class before them for the past several decades has enjoyed a Prom.

 

[Samson]

Yes, the People of Ibwataba Co should care more about the feelings of Queers in Seattle.

This is a strawman. I didn't say anything about Seattle.

My position is: the school should respect the Constitution.

You change that to: the school should care what gay Seattleians think.

Thanks for the timely example!

The school has no Constitutional problem. They canceled the prom. No one got discriminated against. Isn't it great how 2 abnormal people ruined the evening for everyone?

Actually we should really thank the Queers.

School Budgets are tight: There's absolutely no reason for school's to be using any resources to support anything like a "prom."

If we're lucky, the Seattle Times will screech loudly enough about Itawaba Co, MS that every school in the country will ban all proms and use the savings to buy another computer, or books for the library, or pay a teacher to instuct math an extra hour a month.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Someone please teach this dumb **** a new term.

You keep throwing out strawman arguments, I'll keep calling you out on them. Fact is Rosa Parks was born black, the same isn't true in the lesbians case.

Lol....you obviously don't know what "strawman" means. Let's break this down as much as possible:

1. The lesbian students did not violate any school policy.

2. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is as much against the law as discrimination based on skin color.

3. It does not matter if people are born gay or not. It does not justify discrimination against them.

1.The Itawamba County school district's policy requires that senior prom dates be of the opposite sex. So they did in fact seek to violate policy.

2. tell that to the citixens of California who struck down same sex marriage.

3. Choice has a lot to do with it. They chose to be lesbians and they chose to attempt to violate policy.

 

[Againsheila]

My younger son's Catholic HS is now allowing "same sex couples" Not because they are recognizing gays in high school; they are recognizing same sex FRIENDSHIPS. There is simply too much pressure on kids to find a date. That's the way it should be handled. Win/win.

I agree, but the girl went too far in demanding to be able to wear a tux.

 

[CurveLight]

I said their ACTIONS were perceived as immoral, not that they were thought immoral simply because of their skin color alone.

the action was a direct result of race. if it were a white kid whistling there would have been no issue.

check mate.

I don't think so. Your little example of whistling is what does you in. A black person seen whistling wouldn't have caused any problems, and would not have been thought of as immoral. I'll give you that certain ACTIONS were thought immoral because of their skin color. I hardly think people thought them immoral simply because they were black, that's ridiculous. Perhaps rabidly racist people thought so, but normal people would certainly not.

Where did you study the history of the South? A Mississippi KKKamp?

 

[Shogun]

I said their ACTIONS were perceived as immoral, not that they were thought immoral simply because of their skin color alone.

the action was a direct result of race. if it were a white kid whistling there would have been no issue.

check mate.

I don't think so. Your little example of whistling is what does you in. A black person seen whistling wouldn't have caused any problems, and would not have been thought of as immoral. I'll give you that certain ACTIONS were thought immoral because of their skin color. I hardly think people thought them immoral simply because they were black, that's ridiculous. Perhaps rabidly racist people thought so, but normal people would certainly not.

oh you don't THINK that it would have been a total non-issue had it been a white boy whistling rather than a black kid?

oh well THATS convincing.



do I need to pull out the post-trial quotes from the men who killed Emmet or are you going to refrain from giving me a healthy guffaw at the idea that southerners would have reacted similarly to a white kid whistling at a white woman as they did a black kid. In case you are not familiar, it is EXACTLY the fact that till whistled at a white woman that caused a posse to go seeking him. The mitigating factor was specifically his skin color and the immorality of a ****** not knowing his place in MS.

rabidly racist people? HELLO. MISSISSIPPI doesn't ring a ******* bell here?

 

[Newby]

the action was a direct result of race. if it were a white kid whistling there would have been no issue.

check mate.

I don't think so. Your little example of whistling is what does you in. A black person seen whistling wouldn't have caused any problems, and would not have been thought of as immoral. I'll give you that certain ACTIONS were thought immoral because of their skin color. I hardly think people thought them immoral simply because they were black, that's ridiculous. Perhaps rabidly racist people thought so, but normal people would certainly not.

Where did you study the history of the South? A Mississippi KKKamp?

So, your contention is that all southern white people thought black people immoral simply because they were black? Seriously? How did northern people escape this disease exactly? The northern air?

 

[Newby]

the action was a direct result of race. if it were a white kid whistling there would have been no issue.

check mate.

I don't think so. Your little example of whistling is what does you in. A black person seen whistling wouldn't have caused any problems, and would not have been thought of as immoral. I'll give you that certain ACTIONS were thought immoral because of their skin color. I hardly think people thought them immoral simply because they were black, that's ridiculous. Perhaps rabidly racist people thought so, but normal people would certainly not.

oh you don't THINK that it would have been a total non-issue had it been a white boy whistling rather than a black kid?

oh well THATS convincing.



do I need to pull out the post-trial quotes from the men who killed Emmet or are you going to refrain from giving me a healthy guffaw at the idea that southerners would have reacted similarly to a white kid whistling at a white woman as they did a black kid. In case you are not familiar, it is EXACTLY the fact that till whistled at a white woman that caused a posse to go seeking him. The mitigating factor was specifically his skin color and the immorality of a ****** not knowing his place in MS.

rabidly racist people? HELLO. MISSISSIPPI doesn't ring a ******* bell here?

You're talking about racist people, not everyone is or was racist.

 

[CurveLight]

Yes, the People of Ibwataba Co should care more about the feelings of Queers in Seattle.

This is a strawman. I didn't say anything about Seattle.

My position is: the school should respect the Constitution.

You change that to: the school should care what gay Seattleians think.

Thanks for the timely example!

Um.....article in the OP was written by the Seattle Times.

The school is respecting federal law: If they had banned any students from the prom, then this would have been unlawful. Instead, they simply cancelled the prom, making the sexual preference of any student a lawfully mute point.

This is a strawman. I didn't say anything about Seattle.

My position is: the school should respect the Constitution.

You change that to: the school should care what gay Seattleians think.

(hint: it doesn't matter where the op article was written. It has no bearing on my position)